My first ATF test

[Peter Holm]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:12:38PM -0500, Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
>    On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Alan Somers <[1]asomers at freebsd.org>
>    wrote:
> 
>      On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Peter Holm <peter at holm.cc> wrote:
>      > In order to understand how ATF works I wrote a small test so I had
>      > something to work with:
>      > [2]http://people.freebsd.org/~pho/kern_descrip_test.diff
>      > Did I get it right?
>      ATF-wise, it looks good. Â However, it's a bad idea to use random
>      numbers in test code, except in stress tests. Â Random numbers
>      result
>      in irreproducible tests. Â How about replacing the body of
>      dup2_r234131
>      with something like this?
>      Â  int fd1, fd2, ret;
>      Â  fd1 = Â open("/etc/passwd", O_RDONLY);
>      Â  fd2 = INT_MAX;
>      Â  ret = dup2(fd1, fd2);
>      Â  ATF_CHECK_EQ(-1, ret);
>      Â  ATF_CHECK_EQ(EBADF, errno);
>      On a side note, perhaps WARNS should be set in [3]atf.test.mk, so we
>      won't have to set it in every other Makefile.
>      -Alan
>      _______________________________________________
> 
>    When random numbers are used , it is possible to make the runs
>    reproducible in the following way :
>    Generate a specified number of random numbers and store them into a
>    file .
>    During usage , for random numbers , traverse that file .
>    This may be repeated any number of times for different other parameters
>    .
>    All of the runs will use the same random numbers .
>    Then the results ( which they are generated from the same distribution
>    ) may be compared with suitable statistical tests .
>    Thank you very much .
>    Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
> 

I guess I'm too used to using random values in tests :)
Using random(3) with an initial seed of "1" could have been an
alternative, but ...

- Peter